Obama's Privacy Reform Panel Will Report To ... the NSA
569
FuzzNugget writes "No, you didn't just stumble upon The Onion by mistake. Ars Technica reports that Obama's 'reform' panel will report directly to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to Congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications. But is anyone really surprised?"
Happy President (Score:2, Insightful)
And most of you voted for him. I hope you are proud of yourselves.
They aren't taking the issue seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
It's up to us to contact our representatives and let them know that they can't just sweep this under the rug like usual. There has to be consequences.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either he did or he didn't, there's no in-between. In actuality he lied, and did it intentionally.
Technically, I don't think one can lie unintentionally.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Representative democracy is subverted from the very beginning and its so easy to subvert. Most of the voting population make their voting decisions in the same way they make purchasing decisions. By the way, the majority of people don't evaluate the relative benefits etc of the various products they get to choose from. They make their decisions based on advertising. Advertising works, its worth big money, theres no argument there.. It works for products and services and it 'works' for democracy too.
The people who control the advertising control the democracy and so democracy almost automatically transforms into mediacracy.
Who else would they report to? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a panel to determine if the US "employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust."
This isn't supposed to be oversignt. It's entirely for the NSA's benefit.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:1, Insightful)
Read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. It's always been thus. It's never been a democracy. It's only been a republic.
Re: Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
"...but, but, but, *BUSH*!"
Seriously, in your mind, at which point does Obama become responsible for his own actions?
It's not like the 2012 election was GWB vs. Obama.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Eyes pinched closed, fingers in their ears, going 'nah nah nah nah'.
They could have found a libertarian/green buddy (whichever they don't choose) and both vote for 3rd parties, feeling safe they wouldn't change the outcome of the 'lessor of two evils' election while still boosting the party they actually support.
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
There had been enough hints in his previous mandate to know that the trend was just growing. And while voting for the other was been no change of direction, expressely voting no option, or choosing a third party, just to show that you don't approve what the main 2 are, would be a way. If a big enough percent of people didn't like (and expressed to be that way) any of the options, they would had at least a hint.
If you think this is already bad, there are still a few years for things getting even worse, and enough people that think just like you (that if is not one is the other), so the next election won't change trends at all, no matter if is elected the other party. Things will get so bad that 1984 will look like utopia, not distopia.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
how would voting for the other asshole have been any better?
There are more than two options.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. In the past 4 presidential elections, the only time a 3rd party candidate managed to get more than 1% of the popular vote (yet still 0% of the electoral votes) was in 2000 when Nader had 2.78% of the popular vote and if a fraction of his votes had gone to Gore, George W Bush wouldn't have made it to the white house.
Re:Democracy has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
No it won't. It will do nothing. The voter has to learn to resist propaganda, and think critically. Check the records, not the campaign speeches. Campaign 'reform' is a bullshit shell game, just like term limits. They will find another way to launder the money.
The worrisome thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that they live in a world so far removed from our own - in which civil rights, due process and conflicts of interest are active concerns - to such an extent that doing something like this "ain't no thang". Disturbing.
Frankly, they could have at least pretended to give a shit.
Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
Re: Arguably lied? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but he decided not to investigate himself, so it's cool, right?
Re: Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps Americans don't yet believe you have a One Party system. You know the one. It's called the Business Party (run by the rich and powerful for their own benefit) with two factions: Democrat and Republican.
Looking back, it seems like the USA was sold a raw deal. First, soften you up with Baby Bush (and his occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq after the event of 911 and the institution of the NSA spying program before the attacks), then turn around and hit you between the eyes with "Hope". Obama strengthened Baby Bush policies (including several additional rounds of giving money to the already rich bankers thru QE2 and QE3, as well as the currently discussed spying on American soil on Americans), and expanded Presidential power to "legally" execute whomever he chooses without the executed ever standing trial for their deeds.
Apparently habeas corpus and rights granted by the 4th amendment are too difficult and "heavy" concepts for simpleton-Americans to realize their value. Perhaps liberty and freedom are concepts just too remotely difficult to grasp and apply in any meaningful way to your daily lives.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much more important to prosecute for lying about taking steroids to play baseball than it is to prosecute for lying about fucking your country.
Re: Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They aren't taking the issue seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
What consequences exactly?
The same consequences Congress faced when they were found to be engaged in RAMPANT insider-trading?
The same consequences the Bankers faced when they purposefully bankrupted Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac?
The same consequences we see any member of government facing for the NSA spying debacle?
Look guy, I hate to break it to you but the "America" you believed in never really existed and it's never going to exist.
In generations past, we had the facade of that America and everyone tried their best to preserve that ideal.
But the cat's been out of the bag for quite awhile now.
Fact is, Congress and the President are jointly focused on obtaining as much power and control over you as possible.
It's no longer about liberty, it's about Federal might and majesty.
It's just a matter of time before the entirely of the Constitution is circumvented by Congress.
Re: Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the conversation oh_my_080980980 is having right now is:
Mom: Barry-proxy-oh_my_080980980, did you take a cookie after you were told not to?
Barry-proxy-oh_my_080980980: But Georgie took one too!
Any adult knows the problem with that.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
And most of you voted for him. I hope you are proud of yourselves.
Puhleeze.. don't be dense
Dude, when you are asked to eat a shit sandwich consisting of a bite on the left, or a bite on the right, the only choice you have is to look for an area where the shit is thinnest.
Re:Happy President (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
So it's better to never vote at all?
I have never seen a candidate with whom I agree with 100%, so every candidate is somewhat "evil" in that he's not completely in agreement with my principles.
If I feel that one candidate is 10% in line with my ideals, another one is 50% in line with my ideals, and a distant third candidate with no realistic hope of winning is 75% in line with my ideals, I'd rather use my vote to bring in the 50% candidate rather than vote for the 75% candidate knowing that makes the 10% candidate more likely to win.
Or I could just write-in myself since no running candidate is completely "non-evil".
Which is more of a waste of my vote?
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't change the fact that the corporate owned media gets to screen who gets the airtime they need to reach the public.
If you don't sell your soul to the corporate sector you will never make it past the primaries.
And unlike other elections, you do not get to write-in for the president.
Re:Happy President (Score:2, Insightful)
I think plenty of people warned you. But you were blinded by the lights.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
"arguably"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
...the Director of National Intelligence who arguably lied to congress about whether the NSA conducted dragnet surveillance of Americans' communications.
Damn /. editors, you misspelled "arguably". The proper spelling is D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y.
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
James Clapper: "No, sir"
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertantly perhaps collect, but not wittingly."
That is not the truth, but not the whole truth. That is a flat-out lie, told under oath before a Senatorial committee.
Re:how to get by (Score:5, Insightful)
You can cower and boot-lick your way through life if you want. Me, I want to live free.
Hence the Anonymous Cowardice.
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many puppets. Do you still think you have options?
Yes, the ones the corporate media fails to acknowledge. If they were puppets they'd be covered by the press.
Last election I voted Green Party, although since my daughter lives in Ohio I encouraged her to vote Obama. Ohio is a swing state, I support the Occupy movement, and the Republicans ran a corporate raiding, job killing 1%er from Wall Street who made millions on the suffering of others.
I won't vote Libertarian because they're only for giving the corporations and the rich assholes who run them the liberty to trample my rights, put me in an unsafe work environment, and make the air as filthy as it was before the EPA (as well as dismantling our already almost nonexistent safety nets).
I won't vote Constitution party because they want the US to be a Christian theocracy. Sorry but as a Christian I'm prohibited from forcing my morals on others ("do unto others). This is a secular nation with the right to worship anything you want, including Wicca, Satan, FSM, money (our country's primary religion) or nothing at all.
But I'd be stupid (except in the rare occasion that you're in a swing state and one of the two main candidates is a monster like Romney) to vote R or D because they want to put me in jail for smoking pot (I have arthritis and yeah, I like to get high). You have loved ones who smoke pot, why are you voting for people who want them in prison? That's just brain dead stupid.
Don't stay home on election day, vote for a loser and show your discontent with the status quo (that is, unless you like the NSA trolling through your email and phone records and want your children or parents or friends in jail).
NO VOTE IS WASTED.
Re:Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of this 'arguably' and 'allegedly' garbage. James Clapper has already apologized for lying to Congress. HE LIED TO CONGRESS AND HE ADMITTED IT. There is no more 'arguable' or 'allegedly' any more. It is misinformation to keep taking black and white concrete facts and use gray words in their place. It's like there's a hidden agenda somewhere to try to keep people confused on the simplest of facts.
Therefore, Obama appointed the man in charge of the NSA, who already lied to Congress, to investigate possible reforms for the NSA. But then again, Obama also lied about the extent of the NSA's surveillance. The day after Snowden's original revelations, Obama stated that they only collect 'meta' data - but not actual phone calls. Then, recently, he states that they make copies of everything but do not look at it. Therefore, Obama's original statement was a lie.
But that's how our country works.. Obama can lie directly to our faces. James Clapper can lie directly to Congress. And the media will say 'they may have lied.'
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're satisfied with choosing between two sides of the same coin.
Re:Happy President (Score:2, Insightful)
Your politics are rather black-and-white and naive. Are you a libertarian?
Re: Arguably lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, I wonder is Clapper will do the same?
Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know he will.
With this administration its always
1). We're shocked this happened, we will investigate!
2). Assign investigation to the person/group accused of wrongdoing.
3). Profit????? Well at least pay no price......
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
In today's terms, they had 'skin in the game'.
The poor - who are, for the most part, the working poor, not the slovenly slothful parasites of Ayn Rand's potboiler daydreams - have the most 'skin the game' of anyone. Bad policy is more likely to result the literal loss of their skins--everything from limited access to costly healthcare to dangerous working conditions to weakening of environmental regulations disproportionately affects, and shortens the lives of, the poor.
Which means those who do have something spend all their time and money defending themselves against the mob (via buying the representatives outright) instead of making the whole society better.
I give up. Your argument appears to be that the system is broken because the wealthy landowners have to spend too much time and money to control the system, when they ought to have it for free; if we just put them in charge, then they would magically put that money and effort into vague and nonspecific improvement of society (to everyone's benefit!) --and not bickering amongst themselves. Sorry, not buying it.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
So it's better to never vote at all?
I have never seen a candidate with whom I agree with 100%, so every candidate is somewhat "evil" in that he's not completely in agreement with my principles.
That's an extremely broad concept of "evil." As in, invalid.
As we have most recently seen with Obama, the positions he takes when he's in power are not the positions he takes when he's campaigning. I didn't vote for him in 2008 because as soon as he was nominated, he selected Joe Biden as his running mate. That was a strong signal that he was going to preserve the status quo on structural issues. I think Obama-care was the most significant difference with the Republican candidate, so we'll see how that goes.
You should vote for a person based on non-evil decision-making. Realistically, no one president is going to be able to repeal Roe v Wade. No one president is going to dismantle the military. NASA is not building a base on the moon. So vote for the candidate that, when faced with decisions that he can make, will probably make good decisions. I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary because of a quirk of California voting law and because he was campaigning on Change, and I really think the country needs to change. (Then he revealed Biden, and I realized: Nope, no major change.) I trust the third-party candidates more because they're upfront about the ideological basis of their decision-making.
I don't think there's a good way to quantify alignment with ideals. That leads to all sorts of problems with statistical weighting and evaluating how true the candidate is to the ideal. In my short adult life, I've thought that all the major candidates were less than 50% aligned with my interests. Also, writing yourself in is a silly protest. You need to vote for a team of delegates to the Electoral College.
Re:Try reading the Federalist Papers some time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Still think that AC is actually anonymous to those we're talking about here?
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
Your politics are rather black-and-white and naive. Are you a libertarian?
Who taught you to cast "black and white" aspersions as your "excuse" for the bad excuse?
(a) willingly vote for someone that you know is bad
(b) willingly vote for someone that you think might be good
Yes it really is black and white, but no it is not wrong or bad to see it for what it really is.
Do you know why?
Because the argument doesnt present an opinion. Instead, the argument examines an excuse that relates to your own opinion. The argument deals with your opinion of a man and your actions given that opinion of that man. Specifically the argument destroys the excuse of willingly voting for the lesser of two (in your opinion) evils, because it shows quite succinctly that you still voted for what you believed to be evil.
Its black and white because it doesnt present an opinion. I know its uncomfortable when someone tells you that you willingly voted for fucking evil. Doesnt change the fact that you willingly voted for fucking evil.
Re:Kinda like Bush. His ads, competence. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's "gutting" companies that are already failing. He extended the life of most of the companies further than would have been possible without his company's intervention.
Re:Happy President (Score:5, Insightful)
With polls, for instance [wikipedia.org], the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". There's no reason to suspect that this increased support stems from actually hearing the words "leading candidate" spoken orally. It wouldn't be much of a leap of logic to suspect that, in general, people are more likely to support a person who is believed to be a leading candidate. This seems to support my position more than it supports yours, in that it would explain why people are reluctant to support (either in polls or in actual elections) a candidate that is not perceived to be "leading". This is consistent with your own position, even.
If people voted for their own preferences instead of concerning themselves with how other people will vote (which is all you're doing when you bring up whether or not someone has any realistic hope of winning), the world would be a better place. But, from what I understand, that might let the wrong lizard win.
Re:Happy President (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, any religious people SHOULD do that but spreading the word is not the same thing as forcing your rules on others.
People like The Constitution Party want to push their interpretation of their religion's rules on people, not introduce them to their god.
If you think you know God and that he is everyone's creator, ticket to eternal life, etc... especially if your religion says the alternative is eternal damnation then you certainly should want to help others know him too. You would be kind of a monster not to. "Aww, let them all go to Hell, I don't care."
That means religious people should be trying to introduce people to their god(s). But why push their god's rules on everyone? If they come to believe in your god they will adopt your rules anyway, not that that should be the point. If your religion is right and they accept your rules but don't know your god they still go to hell or whatever your religion believes happens to unbelievers.
I may not want a bunch of people preaching their religion to me, trying to get me to convert but if they honestly believe there is so much to be gained by converting and so much to lose by not doing so then wouldn't they be really bad people if they didn't try? Who is worse, the annoying guy that won't shut up about his beliefs or the one that just doesn't care if I burn in hell for eternity or not?
Re:Happy President (Score:4, Insightful)
Having more candidates is only the solution if we have approval voting. If we have plurality voting, then a two-party system is best. ...but a two-party system is terrible, which is why we need approval voting.